The University of Georgia
Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development
College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences
Public Preferences and Values for Purchase of
Agricultural
Conservation Easement (PACE) Programs in
Georgia
Prepared by: John Bergstrom
Center Report No. 04-01
March 2004
Public Preferences and Values for Purchase of Agricultural
Conservation Easement (PACE) Programs in Georgia
John C. Bergstrom
Dmitriy Volinskiy
March, 2004
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics
The University of Georgia, Athens
John Bergstrom is a Professor and Dmitriy Volinskiy is a Graduate Research Assistant,
Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, The University of Georgia, Athens.
Funding support provided by USDA National Research Initiative project entitled,
“Improved Information in Support of a National Strategy for Open Land Policies”,
Kevin J. Boyle (Project Leader) with Mary Ahearn, Anna Alberini, John C. Bergstrom,
Lawrence W. Libby, Michael P. Welsh (Project Cooperators) and the Georgia
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Public Preferences and Values for Farmland Conservation Easements in Georgia
Introduction
The loss of farmland to urban and related development is an issue of considerable
current interest in Georgia, especially in rapidly urbanizing counties. Many county
governments and local private organizations are involved in efforts to preserve farmland.
For example, a consortium of public and private organizations recently worked together
to preserve 63 acres of farmland in Oconee County, GA through the purchase of
conservation easements to the land. A conservation easement is a voluntary legal
agreement between a land owner and the easement holder (e.g., government agency or
private land trust) that places legal restrictions on development of the land in exchange
for monetary compensation to the land owner. In the case of the Oconee County
farmland conservation easement, the holder of the easement is a private organization, the
Athens Land Trust. Funds for purchasing the easement were provided by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and the Georgia Greenspace Program (D’Avria, 2004).
Active efforts and programs to preserve farmland through purchase of conservation
easements are also underway in other Georgia counties including Carroll County and
Fulton County (Chattahoochee Hills Country). There is also state-level interest in
preserving farmland and other green and open space through programs such as the
Georgia Greenspace program.
Public and private funds available to finance purchase of agricultural conservation
easement (or PACE) programs are very limited. Thus, government agencies and private
organizations involved in PACE programs need to prioritize expenditures of their limited
funds. When public tax dollars are used in PACE programs, this prioritization involves
targeting protection of farmland that is most highly valued by the general public.
Government agencies interested or involved in PACE programs therefore need
information on public preferences and values for farmland protection. One of the
primary categories of benefits the general public receives from agricultural land
preservation are farmland amenities in the form of scenic pastoral or countryside views,
wildlife habitat, agritourism and provision of local, fresh food supplies (e.g., pick-yourown operations). Very little is known about how specific attributes of farmland
contribute to the amenity values people place on farmland preservation. The main
purpose of this study was to collect and analyze survey data describing how public
preferences and values for a PACE program in Georgia are affected by different
attributes or characteristics of farmland the program would preserve.
Survey Design and Implementation
The PACE survey conducted for this study was part of a national study of public
preferences and values for farmland preservation funded by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, National Research Initiative program.1 In the first phase of this national
study, focus groups were conducted in the states of Colorado, Georgia, Maine, Ohio and
Oregon. The purpose of these focus groups was to identify specific farmland attributes or
characteristics that influence preferences and values for farmland preservation. Focus
group observations and data analysis suggested that farmland attributes of major concern
to people when considering PACE programs include the location, quality and amount of
1
Survey on Program to Purchase Conservation Easements in Georgia, 2002. Funding support provided by
USDA National Research Initiative project entitled, “Improved Information in Support of a National
Strategy for Open Land Policies”, Kevin J. Boyle (Project Leader) with Mary Ahearn, Anna Alberini, John
C. Bergstrom, Lawrence W. Libby, Michael P. Welsh (Project Cooperators).
farmland preserved and the agricultural commodities produced on preserved land
(Patterson et al, 2004).
The focus groups results were used to design a contingent choice survey of public
preferences and values for a PACE program in Georgia. Contingent choice is an
economic valuation technique that measures how preferences and values (e.g.,
willingness-to-pay) for a good or service are affected by specific attributes or
characteristics of the good or service. The technique involves asking survey respondents
to rank alternative “packages” with different combinations of attributes or preferences
(Bergstrom and Ready, 2004; Champ et al, 2003). In the case of the Georgia PACE
survey, respondents were asked to rank alternative PACE program “packages” with
different combinations farmland attributes suggested by the focus group results. The
PACE program attributes included multiple levels of the general attributes shown in
Table 1. An example of one of the contingent choice questions used in the survey is
shown in Appendix A.
Table 1. Attributes and Attribute Levels Included in the Georgia PACE Survey
Attributes
Attribute Levels
Commodity Produced
1. Grain Crops
2. Vegetables, Berries, Fruit and Nut Crops
3. Hay
4. Pasture Grass for Livestock
5. Timber
Location
1. Near Urban Areas
2. In Rural Areas
Quality
1. Prime agricultural soil
2. Non-Prime agricultural soil
Total Acres Preserved
1. 100,000 acres
2. 500,000 acres
3. 1,000,000 acres
4. 2,000,000 acres
One-time Cost to Household
1. $3
2. $5
3. $7
4. $10
5. $25
6. $50
The Georgia PACE survey was mailed to a random sample of 1,000 Georgia
households in the spring of 2002. Names and addresses for the random sample were
provided by a professional survey research firm. A total of 213 completed questionnaires
were returned. After adjusting for undeliverable questionnaires due to bad mailing
addresses (175) and people who returned the questionnaire blank (19), the effective
response rate to the survey was 26.4%.
Georgia PACE Survey Results
In addition to contingent choice questions designed to measure preferences and
values for PACE program attributes, the Georgia PACE Survey asked general questions
about conservation easement preferences and attitudes related to agriculture and the
environment. As indicated in Table 2, survey respondents placed a high priority on using
conservation easements to preserve farmland and forestland in Georgia relative to other
types of preserved lands. Responses summarized in Table 3 generally show that survey
respondents view farmland protection as being consistent and compatible with
environmental protection.
Survey respondents are supportive of farmers and farmland
protection in general as indicated by the responses summarized in Table 4.
Table 2. Average Priority Score for Purchasing Conservation Easements to Protect
Different Types of Land
Average Priority Score on Scale from 1-6
Land Type
(1= no priority; 6=high priority)
Farmland
4.89
Forestland
4.89
Lake Frontage
4.03
River Frontage
4.26
Ocean Frontage
3.92
Wetlands
4.34
Rangeland
3.44
Mountains
4.23
Undeveloped Land in Cities
3.92
Table 3. Average Agreement Score for Statements Related to Agriculture and the
Environment Attitudes
Agriculture and Environment
Attitude Statement
Farms help to protect water quality
in lakes, rivers and streams
Farms help to protect the quality of
well water people use for drinking
Pesticides and herbicides used by
farmers are major environmental
problems
Disposal of livestock manure is not
a major environmental problem
Soil erosion from farms is a major
problem
Farmland protects rural
communities from flooding
Farms do not contribute to beautiful
scenery
I like to see livestock in fields
Farms should not raise animals in
feedlots and confinement buildings
Farms provide good wildlife habitat
Active farms reduce residential and
commercial sprawl
Farms are an important part of rural
communities
Average Agreement Score on Scale from 1-5
(1= strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree)
3.60
3.49
3.51
3.16
3.16
3.38
1.74
4.42
3.31
4.29
4.11
4.67
Table 4. Average Agreement Score for Statements Related to Farming and
Farmland Protection
Farming and Farmland Protection
Attitude Statement
Most farmers are not wealthy
The government bails farmers out
too much
Farming is a more satisfying
occupation than most others
The family farm must be preserved
Corporate farms are more efficient
than family farms
Large farms get too many
government benefits
Small farms are better stewards of
the land than larger farms
Government should treat farms just
like other businesses
Government should not protect
farmland for future generations
Today’s food is safer than it ever
has been
Today’s food is not as fresh as it
has been
Our country is likely to suffer food
shortages in the near future
Conservation easements help to
insure our nation’s food supply
Average Agreement Score on Scale from 1-5
(1= strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree)
4.17
2.69
3.45
4.31
3.02
3.40
3.66
3.04
1.92
3.17
2.75
3.02
3.62
Contingent Choice Modeling Results
Responses to the contingent choice questions included in the PACE survey were
analyzed using a multinomial logit model that estimated the effects of the PACE program
attributes shown in Table 1 on choices or preferences for different PACE program
packages. The statistical results indicated that respondents placed highest preference on a
PACE program that would target preservation of large amounts of prime farmland near
urban areas used to produce human food crops (e.g., vegetables). Results indicated that
respondents placed lowest preference on a PACE program that would target preservation
of small amounts of non-prime farmland in rural areas used to produce animal food crops
(e.g., hay). The contingent choice modeling results were also used to estimate
willingness-to-pay (WTP) for different PACE program packages in Georgia. These
results are shown in Table 5 and illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1 illustrates how WTP for increasing acres of farmland preserved changes
with different combinations of agricultural commodities produced (human food crop vs.
animal food crops), soil quality (prime vs. non-prime) and location (urban vs. rural).
As shown in Figure 1, WTP per household for PACE programs with different
combinations of agricultural commodities produced, soil quality, and location increases
for all programs as the amount of farmland preserved by the program increases. The
exception is a PACE program that would target preservation of non-prime farmland in
rural areas used to produce animal food crops for which WTP is always equal to zero.
Figure 1 shows that WTP for increasing acres of farmland preserved is largest for a
PACE program that would target prime farmland near urban areas used to produce
human food crops. For this program, WTP is estimated at about $81 per household per
year. WTP estimates for PACE programs with other combinations of farmland attributes
are given in Table 5.
Figure 1. WTP per Household for Conservation Easements in Georgia
WTP
Source: USDA-NRI Conservation Easement Program Survey, 2002
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
Human Food Crops,Prime,Urban
Human Food Crops,Prime,Rural
Human Food Crops,Non-Prime,Urban
Human Food Crops,Non-Prime,Rural
Animal Food Crops,Prime,Urban
Animal Food Crops,Prime,Rural
Animal Food Crops,Non-Prime,Urban
Animal Food Crops,Non-Prime,Rural
100,000
500,000
1,000,000 2,000,000
ACRES
Table 5. Willingness-to-Pay Per Household for Georgia PACE Programs
By Commodity Produced, Quality and Location Attributes
Acres Preserved
Commodity Produced,
Quality, Location
100,000
500,000
1,000,000 2,000,000
Human Food Crops,
Prime, Urban
$62
$66
$71
$81
Human Food Crops,
Prime, Rural
$49
$53
$58
$68
Human Food Crops,
Non-Prime, Urban
$42
$46
$51
$61
Human Food Crops,
Non-Prime, Rural
$29
$33
$38
$48
Animal Food Crops,
Prime, Urban
$6
$10
$15
$25
Animal Food Crops,
Prime, Rural
$0
$0
$2
$12
Animal Food Crops,
Non-Prime, Urban
$0
$0
$0
$6
Animal Food Crops,
Non-Prime, Rural
$0
$0
$0
$0
Discussion
The valuation results from the Georgia PACE survey have several applications
and implications. First, the results can be used by PACE program managers to allocate
limited funds to preserve farmland of highest value to the general public. As discussed
above, the survey results indicate that Georgia citizens place the highest preferences and
values on preserving prime farmland near urban areas used to produce human food crops.
These priorities are consistent with previous studies of preferences for farmland
preservation programs. For example, the priority on preserving farmland near urban
areas reflects the relative scarcity of farmland near urban areas and citizens’ concerns
about continued loss of green and open space and other farmland amenities. The priority
on preserving prime farmland used to produce human foods crops is consistent with
citizens’ general desires to protect the valuable natural resources (e.g., naturally fertile
soils) and maintain access to local, fresh food supplies (Bergstrom and Ready, 2004).
The willingness-to-pay results reported in Table 5 can be used to estimate total
benefits or value of PACE programs targeting different types and amounts of farmland.
For example, suppose a statewide PACE program would preserve 500,000 acres of prime
farmland located near urban areas used predominately to produce human food crops,
100,000 of prime farmland located near urban areas used predominately to produce
animal food crops, and 100,000 acres of prime farmland in rural areas used
predominately to produce human crops. The total benefits or value of preserving each
type and amount of farmland is estimated by multiplying the value or benefit per
household from Table 5 times the total number of Georgia households. The 2000 U.S.
Population Census estimates there are currently about 3,000,000 households in Georgia.
According to the PACE survey results, the value or benefits per household of the
100,000 acres of prime farmland located near urban areas used to produce human food
crops is about $66 generating total statewide benefits of $198 million ($66 x 3,000,000
households). The value or benefits per household of the 500,000 acres of prime
farmland located near urban areas used to produce animal food crops is about $10
generating total statewide benefits of $30 million ($10 x 3,000,000 households). The
value or benefits per household of the 100,000 acres of prime farmland in rural areas used
predominately to produce human food products is about $49 generating total statewide
benefits of $147 million ($49 x 3,000,000 households). Thus, total statewide benefits of
the entire PACE program would be the sum of total statewide benefits for preserving
each type and amount of farmland or $350 million.
The results of the Georgia PACE survey indicate that there is strong demand for
preservation of farmland in Georgia using conservation easements. These results of the
Georgia PACE survey are consistent with additional research based on Georgia Poll data
showing strong support for preservation of farmland in Georgia using funds generated by
tax revenues and private donations (Dorfman et al, 2003). As public demand for
farmland preservation in Georgia expands, information on public preferences and values
for preserving different types and amounts farmland will become even more important
for prioritizing and targeting limited public and private funds.
References Cited
Bergstrom, John C. and Richard C. Ready. “Economic Valuation of Farm and Ranch
Land Amenities: What Economists Have Learned About Public Values and
Preferences.” Proceedings Paper. U.S.D.A. and Farm Foundation Workshop on
What the Public Values About Farm and Ranch Land, Baltimore, Maryland,
November, 2003.
Champ, Patricia A., Kevin J. Boyle and Thomas C. Brown (editors). A Primer on
Nonmarket Valuation. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2003.
D’Avria, Mike. “Greenspace funds keep local land ‘unchanged’” Athens BannerHerald, Monday, March 15, 2004, page 1.
Dorfman, Jeffrey H., Bethany Lavigno, John C. Bergstrom and Barry J. Barnett.
“Is there a Private Market for Farmland Preservation?” Proceedings Paper.
Conference on Compensating Landowners for Conserving Agricultural
Land, University of California, Davis, December, 2003.
Patterson, Robert W., Kevin J. Boyle, Mary Ahearn, Anna Alberini, John C. Bergstrom,
Lawrence W. Libby, Michael P. Welsch. “Public Preferences for Farmland
Attributes in Conservation Easement Programs.” Book chapter in Stephan J.
Goetz, John C. Bergstrom and James S. Shortle (editors). Contemporary
Land Use Problems and Conflicts. London, Routledge Publishers, 2004.
Appendix A: Example of Conjoint Questions in Georgia PACE Survey
Suppose you had to vote between two conservation easement programs, Program A and
Program B. These programs differ in terms of the attributes of the farms that would
receive priority in the bidding process, the number of acres in the program and the cost to
you. Please tell us which of the two programs you would support if you had to choose
between Program A and Program B. You will also be able to tell us if you would vote for
one of these programs or to do nothing.
Farmland use priority
Farmland location priority
Land quality priority
Total acres of easements
purchased in Georgia
One-time cost to your
household in 2002
9.
Conservation Easement
Program B
Growing Vegetables, Berries,
Fruit And Nut Crops
No Priority
No Priority
Near Urban Areas
Prime Farmland
Prime Farmland
100,000
1,000,000
$3
$3
Which program do you prefer? (PLEASE CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1.
2.
10.
Conservation Easement
Program A
Program A
Program B
Now, suppose you could vote between Program A, Program B and doing nothing.
How would you vote? (CIRCLE ONE NUMBER)
1.
2.
3.
I would vote for Program A
I would vote for Program B
I would not vote for either program
The Center for Agribusiness
and Economic Development
The Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development is a unit of the College
of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences of the University of Georgia,
combining the missions of research and extension. The Center has among its
objectives:
<
To provide feasibility and other short term studies for current or potential
Georgia agribusiness firms and/or emerging food and fiber industries.
<
To provide agricultural, natural resource, and demographic data for
private and public decision makers.
To find out more, visit our Web site at: http://www.agecon.uga.edu/~caed/
Or contact:
John McKissick, Coordinator
Center for Agribusiness and Economic Development
Lumpkin House
The University of Georgia
Athens, Georgia 30602-7509
Phone (706)542-0760
caed@agecon.uga.edu
The University of Georgia and Fort Valley State University, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture and counties of the state cooperating. The
Cooperative Extension Service offers educational programs, assistance and
materials to all people without regard to race, color, national origin, age, sex or
disability.
An equal opportunity/affirmative action organization committed to a diverse
work force.
Center Report No. 04-01
March, 2004
Issued in furtherance of Cooperation Extension Acts of May 8 and June 30, 1914,
the University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences,
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture cooperating.
Gale Buchanan, Dean and Director